Nothing kills Democratic candidates' prospects more than guns. If it weren't for guns, President-elect Kerry might now be conferring with incoming Senate Majority Leader Daschle.

Since the Brady Bill took effect in 1994, gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats. They have accomplished almost nothing nationally, other than giving a big boost to the Republicans. Mr. Kerry tried to get around the problem by blasting away at small animals, but nervous Red Staters still suspected Democrats of plotting to seize guns.

Moreover, it's clear that in this political climate, further efforts at gun control are a nonstarter. You can talk until you're blue in the face about the 30,000 gun deaths each year, about children who are nine times as likely to die in a gun accident in America as elsewhere in the developed world, about the $17,000 average cost (half directly borne by taxpayers) of treating each gun injury. But nationally, gun control is dead.

So it's time for a fundamentally new approach, emblematic of how Democrats must think in new ways about old issues. The new approach is to accept that handguns are part of the American landscape, but to use a public health approach to try to make them much safer.

The model is automobiles, for a high rate of traffic deaths was once thought to be inevitable. But then we figured out ways to mitigate the harm with seat belts, air bags and collapsible steering columns, and since the 1950's the death rate per mile driven has dropped 80 percent.

Similar steps are feasible in the world of guns.

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Professor Hemenway has written "Private Guns, Public Health," a brilliant and clear-eyed primer for the country.

We take safety steps that reduce the risks of everything from chain saws (so they don't kick back and cut off an arm) to refrigerators (so kids can't lock themselves inside). But firearms have been exempt. Companies make cellphones that survive if dropped, but some handguns can fire if they hit the ground.

Professor Hemenway notes that in the 1990's, two children a year, on average, died after locking themselves in car trunks. This was considered unacceptable, so a government agency studied the problem, and General Motors and Ford engineered safety mechanisms to prevent such deaths.

In contrast, 15 children under the age of 5 die annually in fatal gun accidents in the U.S., along with 18 children 5 to 9 years old. We routinely make aspirin bottles childproof, but not guns, even though childproof pistols were sold back in the 19th century - they wouldn't fire unless the shooter put pressure on the handle as well as the trigger.

Aside from making childproof guns, here are other steps we could take:

Require magazine safeties so a gun cannot be fired when the clip is removed (people can forget that a bullet may still be in the chamber and pull the trigger). Many guns already have magazine safeties, but not all.

Finance research to develop "smart guns," which can be fired only by authorized users. If a cellphone can be locked with a PIN, why not a gun? This innovation would protect children - and thwart criminals.

Start public safety campaigns urging families to keep guns locked up in a gun safe or with a trigger lock (now, 12 to 14 percent of gun owners with young children keep loaded and unlocked weapons in their homes).

Encourage doctors to counsel depressed patients not to keep guns, and to advise new parents on storing firearms safely.

Make gun serial numbers harder for criminals to remove.

Create a national database for gun deaths. In a traffic fatality, 120 bits of data are collected, like the positions of the passengers and the local speed limit, so we now understand what works well (air bags, no "right on red") and what doesn't (driver safety courses). Statistics on gun violence are much flimsier, so we don't know what policies would work best, and much of the data hurled by rival camps at each other is inaccurate.

Would these steps fly politically? Maybe. One poll showed that 88 percent of the public favors requiring that guns be childproof. And such measures demonstrate the kind of fresh thinking that can keep alive not only thousands of Americans, but the Democratic Party as well.

The left is right.They didnt get their message out.They need to keep preaching on gay marriage,more gun laws ,how the military is bad,raising taxes on the rich ,christians are idiots,Then only then will they win.I'm trying to give them good red state advice. Dont forget to knock Nascar fans that will really go a long ways,You will be sure to pick lots of votes!

Actually he DOES get it--it's his solution that's all wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating his position at all. But he is doing for guns what would be the equivalent of Pro-Lifers throwing in the towel. He's saying the Dems are perceived as having all the wrong answers and can't just SAY things differently or shoot a couple of geese. They have to start changing.

I completely disagree with his position and his answers, but this is the one Dem I've read recently who is saying "We have to change or our party will die." Fortunately, no one will listen, and those who listen will, as he does, come up with the wrong answers.

11
posted on 11/13/2004 2:44:16 PM PST
by Darkwolf377
(If it is not fearful, it is not worthwhile. - Paul Tornier)

but to use a public health approach to try to make them much safer. This shows his true colors right there. "Guns are a disease" according to the public health fascists(and that's exactly what the public health lobby is).

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," Guns are always loaded, dummy. They must let anyone into Harvard nowadays.

Require magazine safeties so a gun cannot be fired when the clip is removed (people can forget that a bullet may still be in the chamber and pull the trigger). Many guns already have magazine safeties, but not all. One of the first training rules is remembering that in semiautos, there's one in the chamber.

This innovation would protect children - and thwart criminals. Will the cops use smart guns?

This guy needs to get bitchslapped again in 2006

12
posted on 11/13/2004 2:44:17 PM PST
by Dan from Michigan
("No time for losers, cause we are the champions...of the world!!!")

I like the idea of gun safety classes in every school a lot more. I hope the nee AG gets very aggressive in restoring 2nd amendment rights for every person in the union. I noticed he is from TX. I hope that is a good sign.

Make guns safer? They are desinged to KILL, not be some form of metallic artwork!

The point of our rebuttal is just that. Next they would want to make knives safer. How, by making them dull?

Guns are inherently safe. It's the HUMANS that are the safety concern. Guns don't just jump off of the shelf and shoot people, any more than SUVs intentionally run down little old ladies in crosswalks all by themselves.

There are already over 30,000 laws on the books regulating the gun industry. You want to throw some more in there? What part of "SHall not be infringed" don't you get? HUH????

26
posted on 11/13/2004 2:51:10 PM PST
by datura
(It's Time To Destroy The MSM, And Their Politically Correct Ideology/Gay Agenda)

The model is automobiles, for a high rate of traffic deaths was once thought to be inevitable. But then we figured out ways to mitigate the harm with seat belts, air bags and collapsible steering columns, and since the 1950's the death rate per mile driven has dropped 80 percent.

And we have fewer traffic accidents? Substantially fewer deaths?

Reliance on simply making equipment more complicated to save lives does not work. Operator training is the key.

Driver's Ed (now removed from many school systems in favor of putting condoms on cucumbers) did help people be more competent drivers.

Grip safety is a feature in Browning's 1911. I confess to being grossly ignorant, but the author writes about grip safeties in 19th century pistols, i.e. preceding Browning's design, and I've never heard of any such firearm. Is it a regular BS, or are there some exotic 19 century firearms for which it is true?

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Professor Hemenway has written "Private Guns, Public Health," a brilliant and clear-eyed primer for the country.

You CAN tell if every gun is loaded, because, as a weapon you have to assume that it is.

It's rule #1 in firearms safety.....

(at least it's how I was raised)

8^)

30
posted on 11/13/2004 2:52:32 PM PST
by The SISU kid
(I'm the swizzle stick in the cocktail of life)

Guns can be made safer by prosecuting criminals to full extent. When thieves, rapists, and burglars are behind bars, we're all much safer. And make them do all the time they are sentenced to, instead of letting them out early.

31
posted on 11/13/2004 2:52:40 PM PST
by Imabeliever
(Islam is the religion of fear, hatred, murder, and terrorism.)

Eddie Eagle worked in the Orlando area when an off-duty cop unknowingly dropped his personal handgun in an elementary school auditorium and the kids knew what to do ... Stop, don't touch, leave the area and tell an adult ... and a whole bunch of them did. (source)

My 7 year old knows that by heart. Yours should too.

33
posted on 11/13/2004 2:54:43 PM PST
by NonValueAdded
("We are in the process of allowing them to self-actualise" LtC. Rainey, Fallujah, 11/04)

Moreover, it's clear that in this political climate, further efforts at gun control are a nonstarter. You can talk until you're blue in the face about the 30,000 gun deaths each year, about children who are nine times as likely to die in a gun accident in America as elsewhere in the developed world, about the $17,000 average cost (half directly borne by taxpayers) of treating each gun injury. But nationally, gun control is dead.

Hey, computer geeks! Let's help this guy out with his statstics! I cannot remember much BASIC any more, but I am sure many people can write him a nice stat generator! I haven't touched this stuff since the '80's so let's clean this up and help this guy's intellectual honesty so he doesn't have to actually make it up himself!

"Although attempts to ban older "unsafe" guns should be resisted, I see no reason why we should knee-jerk reject the very idea of making guns safer."

Amendment V

nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT [January 24, 2000]

Justice Stevens

"I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Make sure the taxpayer "compensates" gun makers for "taking" their property (money) for the public use of "safety," then we can start the debate of mandated safety features.

This is unintentionally funny. I'm sure heads nod up and down in agreement when he runs this by his friends at Manhattan cocktail parties. Has this character ever changed the brakes or alternator on a car?

38
posted on 11/13/2004 2:55:39 PM PST
by dennisw
(G_D - against Amelek for all generations.)

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

I can tell whether a gun is loaded or not. If it's disassembled, it's not loaded. If it's in one piece, it's loaded. That's not hard at all.

For a minute there, I thought I was reading something sensible. "Democrats have made a big mistake by P***ing off the voters with gun control. Photo ops of kerry carrying a shotgun followed by a safari bearer with a dead goose didn't do the trick. So we need to confront this issue and admit that gun control was a mistake."

Then he goes on to say, "Instead of p***ing off the voters by making guns illegal, lets p*** them off by regulating guns out of existence."

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it,"

OK, I'm calling bu!!$h!t here. I owned a camera that you could work the film advance lever on, and it looked like you had taken X number of pictures, and thus that the camera was loaded. The only way you could definitively tell was by opening up the back.

I missed about 40 pictures on a trip once because of this very issue. This guy has no understanding of technology whatsoever, and is thus unqualified to comment on guns.

And now let's start rolling back some of the existing gun control laws! We have the momentum on our side -- even the ultra-liberal, gun-grabbing Senator Kerry was running as a gunowner, and Mr. Kristof of the New York Times is conceding the issue -- we have changed the dynamic of the whole discussion. Now we should use that momentum to gain back some ground.

My first choice would be repealing the 1968 GCA, which would really put a kink in state laws that depend on it for definitions and regulatory bases.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.